On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 05:11:02PM +0100, Sam Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 05:58:01PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:37:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I think the whole thing is a bit of a crock; adding integers to inet
> > > a
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 05:58:00PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:37:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > I'd say this is just a missing feature.
> >
> > I think the whole thing is a bit of a crock; ad
, adding an integer to a inet feels
quite natural. Inet is just another representation of a integer
anyway... so I'd really not have a problem with having either a
int16 or being able to add numerics to inets :)
Btw, anyone have a workaround for my issue?
Kind regards,
Kristian.
--
Kri
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:06:36AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Kristian Larsson wrote:
>
> > And poking in pg_operator / pg_type seems to confirm this:
> >
> > nils=# SELECT (SELECT typname FROM pg_type WHERE typelem=oprleft), oprname,
> > (SELECT typname FROM
x27;+';
?column? | oprname | ?column?
--+-+--
_inet| + | _int8
(1 row)
I could hack together some kluge to loop through, but it all
becomes quite ugly after a while and I would rather see some way
to add a numeric.
Am I doing i
